Patient profiled data for treatment decision-making: valuable as an add-on to hepatitis C clinical guidelines?
Data-driven medicine
Guidelines
Hepatitis C
Patient profiles
Personalized medicine
Journal
BMC medical informatics and decision making
ISSN: 1472-6947
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088682
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Aug 2024
13 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
13
02
2023
accepted:
15
07
2024
medline:
14
8
2024
pubmed:
14
8
2024
entrez:
13
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Systematic reviews and medical guidelines are widely used in clinical practice. However, these are often not up-to-date and focussed on the average patient. We therefore aimed to evaluate a guideline add-on, TherapySelector (TS), which is based on monthly updated data of all available high-quality studies, classified in specific patient profiles. We evaluated the TS for the treatment of hepatitis C (HCV) in an international cohort of patients treated with direct-acting antivirals between 2015 and 2020. The primary outcome was the number of patients receiving one of the two preferred treatment options of the HCV TS, based on the highest level of evidence, cure rate, absence of ribavirin-associated adverse effects, and treatment duration. We enrolled 567 patients. The number of patients treated with one of the two preferred treatment options according to the HCV TS ranged between 27% (2015) and 60% (2020; p < 0.001). Most of the patients received a regimen with a longer treatment-duration (up to 34%) and/or addition of ribavirin (up to 14%). The effect on the expected cure-rate was minimal (1-6% higher) when the first preferred TherapySelector option was given compared to the actual treatment. Medical decision-making can be optimised by a guideline add-on; in HCV its use appears to minimise adverse effects and cost. The use of such an add-on might have a greater impact in diseases with suboptimal cure-rates, high costs or adverse effects, for which treatment options rely on specific patient characteristics.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
OBJECTIVE
Systematic reviews and medical guidelines are widely used in clinical practice. However, these are often not up-to-date and focussed on the average patient. We therefore aimed to evaluate a guideline add-on, TherapySelector (TS), which is based on monthly updated data of all available high-quality studies, classified in specific patient profiles.
METHODS
METHODS
We evaluated the TS for the treatment of hepatitis C (HCV) in an international cohort of patients treated with direct-acting antivirals between 2015 and 2020. The primary outcome was the number of patients receiving one of the two preferred treatment options of the HCV TS, based on the highest level of evidence, cure rate, absence of ribavirin-associated adverse effects, and treatment duration.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We enrolled 567 patients. The number of patients treated with one of the two preferred treatment options according to the HCV TS ranged between 27% (2015) and 60% (2020; p < 0.001). Most of the patients received a regimen with a longer treatment-duration (up to 34%) and/or addition of ribavirin (up to 14%). The effect on the expected cure-rate was minimal (1-6% higher) when the first preferred TherapySelector option was given compared to the actual treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Medical decision-making can be optimised by a guideline add-on; in HCV its use appears to minimise adverse effects and cost. The use of such an add-on might have a greater impact in diseases with suboptimal cure-rates, high costs or adverse effects, for which treatment options rely on specific patient characteristics.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39138441
doi: 10.1186/s12911-024-02608-x
pii: 10.1186/s12911-024-02608-x
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antiviral Agents
0
Ribavirin
49717AWG6K
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
227Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, et al. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(3):118–21.
doi: 10.1177/014107680309600304
pubmed: 12612111
pmcid: 539417
Goldstein BA, Navar AM, Pencina MJ, et al. Opportunities and challenges in developing risk prediction models with electronic health records data: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24(1):198–208.
doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw042
pubmed: 27189013
Bashir R, Surian D, Dunn AG. Time-to-update of systematic reviews relative to the availability of new evidence. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):195.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0856-9
pubmed: 30447694
pmcid: 6240262
Shea KG, Sink EL, Jacobs JC Jr. Clinical practice guidelines and guideline development. J Pediatr Orthop. 2012;32(Suppl 2):S95-100.
doi: 10.1097/BPO.0b013e31824b6e1c
pubmed: 22890466
ZonMw. Oproep indienen projectideeën: Innovatie van Richtlijnen. 2019.
U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Available via https://www.fda.gov/ .
European Medicines Agency. Available via https://www.ema.europa.eu/en .
TherapySelector. https://therapyselector.nl/ .
European Association for Study of L. EASL Recommendations on Treatment of Hepatitis C 2015. J Hepatol. 2015;63(1):199–236.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2015.03.025
European Association for the Study of the Liver. Electronic address eee. EASL Recommendations on Treatment of Hepatitis C 2016. J Hepatol. 2017;66(1):153–94.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2016.09.001
Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Recommendations on Treatment of Hepatitis C 2018. J Hepatol. 2018;69(2):461–511.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.026
Ioannidis JP. The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485–514.
doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210
pubmed: 27620683
pmcid: 5020151